Speech situation - what is it? Modern speech situation. Social role and social status. Stylistic assessment of dialectisms, jargon

The modern speech situation represents a crisis transitional stage. But the language does not deteriorate, it develops. The question of changes in speech and in the language system becomes relevant. Introduced three-part system:

Features of the modern speech situation:
1. The composition of participants in mass and collective communication is expanding dramatically. Broad sections of the population receive speakers, writers.
2. Censorship is sharply weakened in the media.
3. The personal beginning in speech increases.
4. Expanding the scope of spontaneous communication, impromptu.
5. The main parameters of the flow of oral forms of mass communication are changing.
6. Situations and genres of communication in the field of public and personal communication are changing.
7. The rejection of bureaucratic language is growing sharply.
8. There is a desire to develop new means of expression.
9. The birth of new names and the birth of old ones.
In 1991 passed conference "Russian language and modernity" . It put forward the following theses:
1. The modern speech situation is not critical, does not indicate the death of the language, but reflects the typical features of the language of the 20s and the main trends in its development.
2. All researchers are not satisfied with the speech competence of Russian speakers, which indicates a decline in speech culture.
Types of speech culture:
1. Fully functional (elite). The most complete knowledge of all the possibilities of the national language. The attitude to one's own speech is critical. For carriers of this type, a creative attitude to the language is characteristic, their speech is always figurative.
2. Not fully functional. Incomplete measure of language proficiency.
3. Middle literary. A failed incomplete type. People have an idea about the norm, but do not own it. precedent texts - media texts. They treat their own speech uncritically, they know only two functional styles: colloquial and professional. Use a large number of stamps. The level of general culture is low.
4. Literary jargon. ignorance of euphemisms - more decent expressions. Demonstrative unwillingness to use them.
5. Everyday. Never think about their speech.

6. The main functions of the language and their implementation in speech.

The functions of the language are not equivalent. Those functions of the language are recognized as fundamental, the fulfillment of which predetermined its emergence and constitutive properties. The most important social function of language is communicative. It determines its main characteristic - the presence of a material (sound) form and a system of encoding and decoding rules. These properties provide and maintain the unity of expression and perception of meaning. This function forms a pragmatic component of the language structure, adapting speech to the participants and the situation of communication. With the help of language, people convey their thoughts and feelings to each other, thereby influencing each other and forming social consciousness.

The second main social function of the language is called the cognitive (cognitive) function, which consists of a logical (thought-forming) function. Thought then becomes formalized and sensually perceived when it is embodied in the forms of language and expressed in speech. Another component: an accumulative (historical) function, in which language serves as a means of accumulating social experience, a means of forming and developing material and spiritual culture, thereby changing public consciousness.

Statements about language are denoted by the metalinguistic (metalinguistic) function of language, implemented in linguistic texts, in the process of mastering a native or foreign language.

Example: “I explained that there is a big difference between “demonstrative”, when they show what is, and “ostentatious”, when they show what is not” (Khodasevich).

The setting for the message to satisfy the aesthetic sense of the addressee with its form in unity with the content is performed by the aesthetic (poetic) function, which, being the main one for a literary text, is also present in everyday speech, manifesting itself in its rhythm, imagery, etc. Unlike communicative function, which is the main one in ordinary (practical) language, the aesthetic function dominates in artistic speech.

The social function of the language, its social significance, lies in the fact that the language is involved in the development of various aspects of the spiritual life and labor activity of the people.

The achievements of the people, the nation in the development of science, fiction and other areas of spiritual culture are carried out with the direct participation of the native language and are expressed in it. That is why every nation strives, while developing its national culture, to maintain and improve its national language.

7. General characteristics of the national language. The concept of the modern Russian literary language.

The national language is the common language of the whole nation, covering all spheres of speech activity of people. It is not homogeneous and consists of the following varieties: 1) Literary language; 2) Territorial and social dialects; 3) Non-literary vernacular.

The highest form of the national language is literary language- the language is standardized, serving the cultural needs of the people, fiction, the media, science, government agencies.

National language is wider!

Modern Russian literary language :

Russian is the language of the Russian nation

Literary - normalized (having a system of norms and rules)

8.language norm. Types of language norm. Signs of the language norm.

A linguistic norm is a set of the most stable language means and rules illuminated by tradition, their use, accepted in a given society, in a given era.

There are three formulas of language norms:

1. A is right, B is wrong.

2. A - correct, B - correct.

3. A - correct in X style, B - correct in y style.

In accordance with the main levels of the language and the areas of use of language tools the following types of norms are distinguished:

1. orthoepic norms - this is the rule for pronouncing sounds and sound combinations and placing stress in a word. Deviation from this type of norms generates the corresponding type of speech errors.

Subdivided into:

proper pronunciation.

· Accent

2. Lexical norms - rules for the use of words in accordance with their lexical meaning and compatibility, violation leads to lexical errors (smart girl / smart leg (lex.)).

Variety of lexical errors:

Mixing words with similar meanings

Mixing words with similar sounds

Mixing words that are similar in meaning and sound

Unresolved ambiguity

· Pleonasms, tautologies.

3. Phraseological norms

Rules for the use of stable combinations of words in accordance with their meaning, composition and grammatical form.

Types of phraseological errors:

Changing the lexical composition or replacing a component (she keeps it in her mittens/ mittens; Ivanushka grew by leaps and bounds, and at night/ by hours)

truncation (successes wish the best / successes leave much to be desired)

Expansion of the lexical composition (it's time for you to take up mine mind; he is before his will not forget the coffin).

Distortion of grammatical form (beat bucket/ buckets; tablecloth for him road/road; in head goes around / head).

Contamination - combining the components of two different phraseological units into one (this work a penny not worth / a broken penny)

Pleonastic combinations - use with words that duplicate its meaning ( Vain monkey labor, tough hedgehog gloves, random stray bullet).

Use in an unusual meaning (the lesson passed and your song was sung).

4. Word-building norms are the rules for the formation of words in the modern Russian literary language.

deviation from word-formation norms leads to word combinations.

5. Morphological norms - the rules for the formation of grammatical forms of words.

6. Syntactic norms - the rules for constructing a combination, sentence and text.

10. Speech errors and their classification.

speech error- an error associated with incorrect or not with the most successful use of words or phraseological units. The main causes of speech errors are misunderstanding of the meaning of a word, lexical compatibility, use of synonyms, use of homonyms, use of polysemantic words, verbosity, lexical incompleteness of the statement, new words, obsolete words, words of foreign origin, dialectisms, colloquial and colloquial words, professional jargon, phraseological units, cliches and stamps.

Speech errors are divided into:

1) Lexical(A lexical error is the use of one word instead of some other, completely different from it in meaning: "Onegin was a courtyard" (instead of "nobleman")).

2) Morphological(These are incorrect formations of word forms during inflection, when the wrong ending is taken to the word form, which is required. The following typical errors are observed: - the formation of the nominative plural from masculine nouns with the ending - a (-я) instead of the ending - and ( -y): locksmith (instead of locksmiths), turner, bulldozer, hair, reprimand, hospital, combine operator, etc. (instead of getting sick), ride (instead of ride), crawl (instead of crawl), climb (instead of crawl), torment (instead of torment), scatter (instead of scatter), tremble (instead of tremble). cheaper, beautiful, lie down (instead of lying down), business, places; I don’t need to go there (instead of nothing); someone has doubts (instead of someone), for someone, from someone ( instead of someone after someone, something from someone).)

3) Syntactic (these are the norms for the correct construction of phrases and sentences. Compliance with syntactic norms is the most important condition for the correctness of speech.)

4) Stylistic (this is the incorrect use of the word and (or) the incorrect construction of the sentence. The use of paronyms and pleonasm. Paronyms(words similar in meaning) are often used incorrectly. The following pairs can be cited as examples: difference (of something from something) - difference (between something and something), assimilate - master (the second is used in the sense of a higher degree of manifestation of the action), equal (same) - smooth (without protrusions, irregularities), provide (give for use) - present (present), linguistic (from language in the meaning of organ) - linguistic (from language in the meaning of speech) and many others. Pleonasm is a verbal excess, interspersed with words that are unnecessary from a semantic point of view. After updating an existing object...(After updating an object...); An operation is the way in which an action is performed...(An operation is a way of performing an action...); To provide... (To provide...). Tautology(a definition is called that repeats what was said earlier in a different form.) Incorrect: Along with these signs, there are a number of others ... True: Along with these signs, there are others ...)

5) communicative in accordance with the language level at which they arise.

Speech errors (P) are errors not in the construction of a sentence, not in the structure of a language unit, but in its use, most often in the use of a word, that is, a violation of lexical norms. These are pleonasm, tautology, speech clichés, inappropriate use of colloquial vocabulary, dialectisms, jargon; expressive means, non-distinguishing of paronyms. Errors in the use of homonyms, antonyms, synonyms, ambiguity not eliminated by the context.

№	Error type	Examples
P1	The use of a word in an unusual sense	We were shocked by the wonderful performance of the actors. Thanks to the fire, the forest burned down.
R2	Unjustified use of dialect and colloquial words	Such people always manage to fool others. Oblomov did nothing and played the fool all day long.
P3	Bad use of pronouns	The text was written by V. Belov. It refers to the artistic style; I immediately had a picture in my mind.
R4	The use of words of a different stylistic coloring; mixing vocabulary from different eras; inappropriate use of stationery, expressive, emotionally colored words, outdated vocabulary, jargon, inappropriate use of phraseological units	According to the author's idea, the hero wins; Molchalin works as Famusov's secretary; In the novel by A.S. Pushkin there are lyrical digressions; The author now and then resorts to the use of metaphors and personifications. If I were there, then for such an attitude towards my mother, I would have given this cupcake in the gnaw; Don't put your finger in Zoshchenko's mouth, just let the reader laugh.
P5	Indistinguishability of shades of meaning introduced into the word by prefix and suffix	In such cases, I look in the dictionary.
R6	Non-distinguishing of paronyms, synonymous words; errors in the use of antonyms when constructing an antithesis; destruction of the figurative meaning of a phraseological unit in an unsuccessfully organized context	Effective measures were taken; The name of this poet is familiar in many countries; In the third part of the text, not a cheerful, but not a major motif makes us think; the phonograph record has not yet said its last word.
R7	Violation of lexical compatibility	The author uses artistic features.
R8	Use of superfluous words, including pleonasm	Young youth; very lovely.
R9	The use of words near or close to the same root (tautology)	This story tells about real events.
P10	Unjustified repetition of a word	The hero of the story does not think about his act. The hero does not even understand the full depth of what he has done.
R11	Poverty and monotony of syntactic constructions	When the writer came to the editorial office, he was accepted by the editor-in-chief. When they talked, the writer went to the hotel.
R12	Use of superfluous words, lexical redundancy	Then the fact that you can smile, our bookstore will take care of it.

11. Language and speech: comparative characteristics.

Language is a system of signs and symbols. Speech is the ability to speak a language. Language reveals itself only through speech. In linguistics, speech is understood as a specific speaking that takes place in time, clothed in a linguistic form (inner speech).

Difference: speech is concrete, unique, relevant, unfolds in time. It is realized in space, speech is active, tends to unite words. Unlike language, it is less conservative, but more mobile. Speech as a sequence of words involved in it reflects the experience of the speaker, is conditioned by the context, and can be chaotic. On the one hand, speech using already known language means depends on the language. And it has characteristics that have no other relation to the language (specific timbre, duration, degree of literacy, accent).

12. Two forms of speech: oral and written.

Speech communication occurs in 2 forms: oral and written. They are in a complex unity and occupy the same place in social speech practice. The basis of oral and written speech is literary speech - normalized.

Feature of oral speech: Oral speech is a sounding speech functioning in the sphere of direct communication. Historically, the oral form is primary. A greater role in it is played by: 1) the place of logical stress; 2) The degree of clarity of pronunciation; 3) The presence or absence of pauses.

Oral speech has an intonation variety capable of conveying all the richness of human feelings. It is perceived by ear. It can be prepared or unprepared. Prepared differs: 1) thoughtfulness; 2) a clear structural compositional organization; 3) compliance with speech norms; 4) Strict logic. Unprepared characterized by: 1) spontaneity; 2) The statement is formed gradually, depending on the situation. The speaker controls the sl. Language levels: 1) logical-compositional; 2) syntactic. Those. makes sure that the speech is logical and coherent. Chooses appropriate words to adequately express thought.

Oral speech, as well as written speech, is normalized and regulated, but its norms differ from book speech. In the oral norm - this is what is not perceived as an error.

The oral form of speech is assigned to all functional styles of the Russian language, but it has an advantage in the colloquial everyday style of speech. Allocate: 1) oral journalistic speech; 2) in the field of official business communication; 3) oral scientific; 4) colloquial speech.

Spoken language affects all varieties of oral speech.

Written speech: an auxiliary sign system created by people that is used to fix sounding speech. At the same time, writing is an independent communication system that complements a number of specific functions. It makes it possible to assimilate the knowledge accumulated by a person, expands the scope of human communication, breaks the boundaries of the immediate environment.

main function- fixation of oral speech, which has the goal of preserving the last in space and time.

Written speech unfolds not in time, but in a statistical space, which makes it possible to think over the speech, return to what has already been written, rebuild sentences, parts of the text, replace words, clarify.

Written speech uses bookish language, the use of which is strictly regulated. The word order is fixed, inversion is not typical, in some cases it is unacceptable.

Sentences, as a rule, express complex logical and semantic connections, therefore, logical and semantic connections are characteristic of it. It is focused on the perception of the organs of vision, so it has a clear structural and formal organization.

15.Text. Text features. Discourse.

Text is an ordered set of sentences designed to express some meaning.

Features of the text: 1) Communicative completeness; 2) Connectivity; 3) integrity (unity); 4) dynamism; 5) Compression and redundancy; 6) Imagery.

Discourse (French discours - speech, performance, words) - in a broad sense, it is a complex unity of language practice and extralingual factors (significant behavior that manifests itself in forms accessible to sensory perception) necessary for understanding the text, i.e. gives an idea of the participants in communication, their attitudes and goals, the conditions for the development and perception of the message. Traditionally, discourse had the meaning of an ordered written, but most often speech, message of an individual subject. In recent decades, the term has become widespread in the humanities and has acquired new shades of meaning. The frequent identification of text and discourse is connected, firstly, with the absence in some European languages of the term equivalent to French English, discours (e), and secondly, with the fact that earlier only language practice was included in the scope of the concept of discourse. With the development of discourse analysis as a special area of research, it became clear that the meaning of discourse is not limited to written and oral speech, but also denotes extralinguistic semiotic processes. The emphasis in the interpretation of discourse is placed on its interactional nature. Discourse is, first of all, a speech immersed in life, in a social context (for this reason, the concept of discourse is rarely used in relation to ancient texts).

16. Lexicography and speech culture.

A dictionary is a specific organization of collections of words, usually with comments that describe the structural features of the words. There are also dictionaries in which there are no special comments.

In another sense, the term dictionary denotes the entire set of a certain language and is opposed to the term grammar, which denotes a set of rules for constructing more complex language expressions from words.

A linguistic discipline that focuses on vocabulary-building techniques called lexicography.

Lexicography is one of the branches of lexicology.

Main task: development of general typologies of dictionaries and description of the main types of dictionaries of the Russian language.

Lexicography is both a science and an art.

The lexicographer is a scientist.

The scribe, having determined the meaning of an unfamiliar word, wrote it between the lines or in the margins (glosses).

The earliest glosses are known from the deepest antiquity.

Handwritten glossaries were in constant demand. With the advent of printing, books fell in price, and dictionaries were among the first printed products.

In the 16th century, new principles for compiling dictionaries were formed, in particular, the alphabetical principle of arrangement was gradually approved.

(Lexicography (ancient Greek λεξικόν, lexikon - “dictionary” and γράφω, grapho - “I write”) - a section of linguistics that deals with the compilation of dictionaries and their study; a science that studies the semantic structure of a word, features of words, their interpretation.

Practical lexicography performs socially important functions, providing language teaching, description and normalization of the language, interlingual communication, scientific study of the language. Lexicography seeks to find the most optimal and acceptable for perception ways of dictionary representation of the entire body of knowledge about the language.

Theoretical lexicography covers a complex of problems related to the development of the macrostructure (selection of vocabulary, the volume and nature of the dictionary, the principles of the arrangement of material) and the microstructure of the dictionary (the structure of the dictionary entry, types of dictionary definitions, the ratio of different types of information about the word, types of language illustrations, etc.). ), the creation of a typology of dictionaries, with the history of lexicography.

Lexicography is a word in the totality of all its properties, so the dictionary is not only a unique and indispensable language tool, but also the most important tool for scientific research. The linguistic science of the 21st century strives to embody all aspects of the acquired knowledge in the dictionary form, therefore, in the latest dictionaries, not only words, but also other language units become the object of description.

Among the famous lexicographers are Pollux, C. Ducange, I.K. Adelung, I.G. Walter, V.I. Dal.

A culture of speech…)

17. Linguistic dictionaries of the Russian language and their purpose.

A linguistic dictionary is a scientific reference publication where words are placed in alphabetical order and stable combinations, words with their interpretation, stress, grammatical, syntactic and other notes. Linguistic dictionaries describe words, their meaning, features of use, structural properties, compatibility, correlation with lexical systems of other languages.

Special attention deserves the distinction between linguistic (primarily explanatory) and encyclopedic dictionaries, which, first of all, consists in the fact that concepts are described in encyclopedic dictionaries (depending on the volume and addressee of the dictionary, more or less detailed scientific information is given), in explanatory - linguistic meanings. There are many entries in encyclopedic dictionaries in which proper names are the heading word.

An example of a dictionary entry from a linguistic dictionary:

Marmot, -r to a, m. A small rodent of the family. squirrel, living in burrows and hibernating in winter.

An example of a dictionary entry from an encyclopedic dictionary:

Marmots, a genus of mammals of the family. squirrels. Body length up to 60 cm, tail less than 1/2 body length. 13 species, in the North. hemispheres (excluding deserts and tundras); in Russia several types. Object of trade (fur, fat, meat). They may be carriers of the plague pathogen. Some species are rare and protected.

18. The concept of a typical text and its role in business communication.

Sample text- this is a sample text, on the basis of which texts of similar content are subsequently created.

19. Characteristics of the official business style.

The main sphere of functioning is administrative and legal activity. This style satisfies the need of society for documenting various acts, state, socio-political, economic life, business relations in organizations, as well as between members of society.

Style texts represent a huge variety of genres (documents, orders). The expression of legal will in documents determines the properties of business speech and the socially organizing uses of the language.

Functions of official business style: 1) informational; 2) prescriptive; 3) Ascertaining.

The form of implementation is written.

Two sub-styles are distinguished from the official business style: 1) Legislative (official documentary (language of legislative documents)); 2) Clerical (Everyday business (correspondence between institutions))

Style features: 1) Accuracy of presentation, which does not allow for the possibility of differences in interpretation.

2) Detailed presentation

3) Steriatypism (standardization)

4) Emotionlessness

5) Impersonality

6) objectivity

7) Consistency

Speech here has a dual nature, it is characterized by the abstractness of the means of expression and the concreteness of the content.

Language features of the official business style: Words and phrases that have a pronounced functional and stylistic coloring are used. Among them are a significant number of professional terms. The official business style is characterized by a tendency to reduce the number of words, to simplify their structure (narrow terminology).

Therefore, texts of this style often give precise definitions of the words and concepts used. Polysemy (polysemy), use in a figurative sense is unacceptable here, synonyms are used to a small extent. Compound words formed from two or more stems are typical for business language. This is a specific clerical vocabulary.

Among the factors and conditions for the development of the modern Russian language (internal and external), in our opinion, the following can be distinguished:

1. The trend of general language development is towards democratization. The composition of participants in mass and collective communication has sharply expanded: new strata of the population are joining the role of speakers, the role of writers for newspapers and magazines. Since the late 80s, thousands of people with different levels of speech culture have received the opportunity to speak publicly.

2. In the media, censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened.

3. Increasing personal start in speech. Faceless and unaddressed speech is replaced by personal speech, it acquires a specific addressee. Increasing dialogue communication, both oral and written.

4. Expanding scope spontaneous communication not only personal, but also oral public. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say!

5. Important parameters of the flow of oral forms of mass communication are changing: the possibility of a direct appeal of the speaker to the listeners and feedback from the listeners to the speakers is created.

Situations and genres of communication are changing both in the field of public and in the field of personal communication. Rigid limits of official public communication are weakened. Many genres of oral public speech are born in the sphere of mass communication. The dry radio and TV announcer has been replaced by a presenter who reflects, jokes, and expresses his opinion.

The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past is growing sharply.

There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of speech etiquette formulas (in particular, new types of appeals to strangers).

Along with the birth of the names of new phenomena, there is a revival of the names of those phenomena that return from the past, banned or rejected in the era of totalitarianism.

In the modern literary language, there is an intensive convergence of traditional book-written and oral means with everyday colloquial elements, urban vernacular, social and professional dialects. However, a certain emancipation of literary norms should not lead to their loosening or stylistic decline. As a normal and inevitable process, such emancipation creates conditions for the richness and diversity of all expressive means and, consequently, for the improvement of speech culture. At the same time, we are well aware that modern oral and written speech is stylistically reduced and coarsened The language of fiction tends to be faceless and standard (including the standards of the latest modernism and the underground) The language of science suffers from unnecessary complexity, an abundance of not always justified foreign borrowings in the field terminology Publicism sometimes sins with verbosity, indistinctness and inexpressiveness. The legitimate alarm of the public is caused by the argotic elements that have flooded into our press, which are uniformly used to “revive” texts. For example: download rights, in law(often in the headlines of articles), hang noodles on your ears, powder your brains, for free, hang out and many others. etc. Such a deliberate coarsening of speech, of course, is not directly related to the normal processes of democratization of the literary language and is rather a reflection and indicator of an insufficiently high level of speech and general culture of speakers and writers, a lack of linguistic taste.

Content

Introduction

Accuracy and clarity of speech

2.1 Accuracy of word usage…...………………….………………..……7

2.2 Stylistic assessment of dialectisms, jargons………………..…8

2.3 Stylistic assessment of borrowed words……………………….….9

2.4 Words-paronyms and accuracy of speech………………………………………….11

2.5 Accuracy of inflection and shaping……………………….13

2.6 Clarity of syntactic constructions………………………….……....14

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………....15
Literature………...…………..……………………………………………….16

Modern speech situation

Language is a powerful means of regulating people's activities in various fields, therefore, studying the speech behavior of a modern person, understanding how a person owns the richness of the language, how affectively he uses it, is a very important and urgent task.

Every educated person must learn to evaluate speech behavior - his own and those of his interlocutors, to correlate his speech actions with a specific situation of communication.

Today, the speech of our contemporaries attracts more and more attention of journalists, scientists of various specialties (linguists, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists), writers, teachers, it becomes the subject of heated discussions among ordinary Russian speakers. Feeling speech problems, they try to answer the question of what is the reason for the disturbing state of speech culture. The age-old Russian questions “what to do?” and "who is to blame?" quite natural in relation to the Russian language and Russian speech.

In the in-depth study "The Russian Language of the End of the 20th Century (1985-1995)", an attempt was made to highlight the most significant features of the Russian language of the end of the century. It notes:

“The events of the second half of the 1980s and early 1990s were similar to the revolution in their impact on society and language. The state of the Russian language of our time is determined by a number of factors.

1. The composition of participants in mass and collective communication is expanding dramatically: new strata of the population are joining the role of speakers, the role of writers for newspapers and magazines. Since the late 80s, thousands of people with different levels of speech culture have received the opportunity to speak publicly.

2. In the media, censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened.

3. The personal beginning in speech increases. Faceless and unaddressed speech is replaced by personal speech, it acquires a specific addressee. Biological communication, both oral and written, is increasing.

4. The sphere of spontaneous communication is expanding, not only personal, but also oral public. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say.

6. Situations and genres of communication are changing both in the field of public and in the field of personal communication. Rigid limits of official public communication are weakened. Many new genres of oral public speech are born in the field of mass communication. The dry radio and TV announcer has been replaced by a presenter who reflects, jokes, and expresses his opinion.

7. The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past (the so-called Newspeak) is growing sharply.

8. There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of appeals to strangers.

9. Along with the birth of the names of new phenomena, there is a revival of the names of those phenomena that return from the past, forbidden or rejected in the era of totalitarianism ”(Russian language of the end of the 20th century. M., 1996).

The freedom and emancipation of speech behavior entails the loosening of linguistic norms, the growth of linguistic variability (instead of one acceptable form of a linguistic unit, different variants turn out to be acceptable).

Language and speech

Linguists of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, overcoming the universalism and dogmatism of naturalists (Schleicher), more and more delved into the study of individual linguistic facts and brought their studies to the speech of an individual person. The successes of the new science - psychology - contributed to these aspirations - to bring research to the individual. These views, in their extreme manifestation, went as far as denying the language as the property of the collective, questioning the existence of languages.

So, A. A. Shakhmatov believed that “real life has the language of each individual; the language of a village, city, region, people turns out to be a well-known scientific fiction, because it is composed of the facts of the language that are part of certain territorial or tribal units of individuals. (Shakhmatov A. A. Essay on the modern Russian literary language, 4th ed. M., 1941. p. 59.)

Proponents of such views, according to a Russian proverb, "can't see the forest for the trees." W. Humboldt (1767-1835) wrote about this: “... in reality, language always develops only in society, and a person understands himself insofar as experience has established that his words are also understandable to others.” (Humboldt V. On the difference in the structure of human languages and its influence on the spiritual development of the human race, see: Zvegintsev V.A. History of linguistics of the XIX-XX centuries in essays and extracts. 3rd uz. M., 1964. Part 1 pp. 97)

This idea in the formulation of Marx is as follows: language is “... existing for other people and only thereby also existing for myself” (Marx K. German ideology / / Marx K. and Engels F. Op. 2 -e ed. T. 3. S. 29.), and if the language is always the property of the collective, then it cannot be a mechanical sum of individual languages. Rather, the speech of each speaker can be considered as a manifestation of a given language in a particular life situation. But the individual characteristics in the speech of each person is also an indisputable fact.

This raises a very important problem: languages. These concepts are often confused, although it is quite clear that; for example, physiologists and psychologists deal only with speech, in pedagogy it is important to talk about the development and enrichment of students' speech, in medicine - about speech defects, etc.; in all these cases, "speech" cannot be replaced by "language", since it is a question of a psychophysiological process.

Speech, its features

If language is a system of signs and symbols, then speech is the process of using language. Speech is the realization of language, which reveals itself only through speech.

In linguistics, speech is understood as a specific speaking that takes place in time and is clothed in a sound form (including internal pronunciation - inner speech) or written. Speech also includes the products of speaking in the form of a speech work (text), fixed by memory or writing. The differences between speech and language are as follows.

First, speech is concrete, unique, relevant, unfolds in time, is realized in space. Let us recall the ability of some speakers, for example, the Cuban leader F. Castro or the Soviet President M. Gorbachev, to speak for hours. Collected works of many writers has dozens of volumes.

Secondly, speech is active, linear, tends to combine words in the speech stream. Unlike language, it is less conservative, more dynamic, mobile. Thus, with the announcement of publicity and freedom of speech in our country, the manner of presenting information has noticeably changed, especially about political leaders and social processes. If earlier the messages were kept strictly in the official style, now no one writes about these processes and leaders without a slight irony.

Thirdly, speech as a sequence of words involved in it reflects the experience of the speaker, is conditioned by the context and situation, is variable, can be spontaneous and disordered. We often come across examples of such speech in everyday life and at work.

Speech, on the one hand, using already known linguistic means, fundamentally depends on the language. At the same time, a number of characteristics of speech, such as tempo, duration, timbre, degree of loudness, articulatory clarity, accent, are not directly related to the language. Of particular interest is the use in speech of words that are absent in the language. For the study and enrichment of the Russian language in linguistics, the following directions are singled out and developed: "The style of the Russian language" and "Culture of speech".

The subject and tasks of practical stylistics

The term "practical style" is found in V.V. Vinogradova, G.O. Vinokura, K.I. Bylinsky and other researchers of the problems of stylistics. It is also used in foreign science... Manuals on the normative style of national languages are being created. Attempts are made to define the concept of normativity, linguistic (and stylistic) norm.

The concept of norm is important for any literary language. Even in the artistic and fiction style, where the freedom of choice of language means is widely used and the originality of the individual style of the writer is affected, a complete departure from the national norm is impossible, because “the language of a truly artistic work cannot deviate far and significantly from the basis of the national language, otherwise it will cease to be generally understandable. ".

In practical stylistics, where lexical and grammatical synonymy plays a huge role, the norm is “the totality of the most suitable (“correct”, “preferred”) language means for serving society, which is formed as a result of the selection of linguistic elements (lexical, pronunciation, morphological, syntactic ) from the number of coexisting, present, formed again or extracted from the passive stock of the past in the process of social, in the Broadest sense, evaluation of these elements.

The normative nature of practical stylistics brings it closer to that broad section (philological science, which is called the “culture of speech.” If we consider that, in addition to the objective historical study of the speech life of society in a certain era, the task of this philological discipline is to reveal the norms of the literary language in all "levels" of the language system and the establishment on a scientific basis of the rules for using the language, then we can talk about the direct connection of some problems of stylistics and problems of the culture of speech. So G. O. Vinokur wrote: "The task of stylistics ... is to teach the members of this of the social environment, an active-purposeful handling of the linguistic canon, to dissect the linguistic tradition and such an attitude that would allow speakers to actively use all the elements contained in its broad framework, depending on the specific social and everyday situation, on the goal that implies behind each given act individual speaking.

Characteristics of the concept "Culture of speech"

The concept of culture of speech is closely connected with the literary language. The ability to clearly and clearly express one’s thoughts, to speak competently, the ability not only to attract attention with one’s speech, but also to influence listeners, possession of a culture of speech is a kind of professional suitability characteristic for people of various professions: diplomats, lawyers, politicians, teachers of schools and universities, radio and television workers, managers, journalists.

It is important to master the culture of speech for everyone who, by the nature of their activities, is connected with people, organizes and directs their work, conducts business negotiations, educates, takes care of health, and provides various services to people.

What is the culture of speech?

The culture of speech is understood as the possession of the norms of the literary language in its oral and written form, in which the choice and organization of language means are carried out, which allow, in a certain situation of communication and while observing the ethics of communication, to provide the necessary effect in achieving the goals of communication.

The culture of speech contains three components: normative, communicative and ethical.

The culture of speech implies, first of all, the correctness of speech, that is, the observance of the norms of the literary language, which are perceived by its speakers (speaking and writing) as an "ideal" or model. The language norm is the central concept of speech culture, and the normative aspect of speech culture is considered one of the most important.

However, the culture of speech cannot be reduced to a list of prohibitions and definitions of “right or wrong”. The concept of "culture of speech" is associated with the laws and features of the functioning of the language, as well as with speech activity in all its diversity. It also includes the possibility provided by the language system to find a new language form to express specific content in each real situation of speech communication.

The culture of speech develops the skills of selecting and using language means in the process of speech communication, helps to form a conscious attitude to their use in speech practice in accordance with communicative tasks. The choice of language means necessary for this (goal) is the basis of the communicative aspect of the culture of speech. The well-known philologist, a prominent specialist in the culture of speech G. O. Vinokur wrote: “For each goal there are means, this should be the slogan of a linguistically cultural society.”

Communicative expediency is considered one of the main categories of the theory of speech culture, therefore it is important to know the basic communicative qualities of speech and take them into account in the process of speech interaction.

In accordance with the requirements of the communicative aspect of the culture of speech, native speakers must know the functional varieties of the language, as well as focus on the pragmatic conditions of communication, which significantly affect the optimal choice and organization of speech means for this case.

The ethical aspect of the culture of speech prescribes the knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in specific situations. Ethical norms of communication are understood as speech etiquette (speech formulas of greeting, request, question, gratitude, congratulations, etc.; appeal to "you" and "you"; choice of full or abbreviated name, form of address, etc.).

The use of speech etiquette is greatly influenced by extralinguistic factors: the age of the participants in the speech act (purposeful speech action), their social status, the nature of the relationship between them (official, informal, friendly, intimate), time and place of speech interaction, etc.

The ethical component of the culture of speech imposes a strict ban on foul language in the process of communication, condemns the conversation in "raised tones". Equally important are the accuracy and clarity of speech.

Accuracy of word usage

Accuracy and clarity of speech are interrelated. However, the speaker (writer) must take care of the accuracy of the statement, and the listener (reader) evaluates CLARITY.

We put our thoughts into words. In order for speech to be accurate, words should be used in full accordance with the meanings that are assigned to them in the language. L.N. Tolstoy jokingly remarked: “If I were a king, I would have issued a law that a writer who uses a word whose meaning he cannot explain is deprived of the right to write and receives 100 blows of the rod.”

The search for the only necessary word in the text requires the writer to exert creative strength and tireless work. This work is sometimes reflected in manuscripts, allowing us to get acquainted with the lexical substitutions that the author made, polishing the style of the work. For example, in the draft of A.S. Pushkin's "Dubrovsky" we find the following correction: "The members (of the court) met him (Troekurov) with expressions of [deep humiliation, deep devotion] deep servility" - the last word most expressively described the behavior of the officials bribed by Troekurov, and the writer left it in the text.

The stylistic editing of the writers in the manuscript reflects the last stage of work on the text, and what work preceded this, how many drafts were written and then destroyed, how many times the author said this or that phrase “to himself” before writing it down on paper - this can be just guess.

A careless attitude to the choice of words in our everyday speech causes annoying lexical errors, for example: Spring has come, martens will soon have an inheritance (meaning offspring); I decided to become an officer because I want to continue the family dynasty (instead of: tradition).

In such cases, one speaks of using the word without regard to its semantics (i.e. meaning). Such speech errors cause illogicality and even absurdity of speech: And our Far Eastern birches stand in their wedding shroud (the author mixed up the shroud and veil). Such "slips of the tongue" are explained by false associations (these are associative errors).

The ambiguity of the statement may arise when using polysemantic words and homonyms, if the context shows a meaning that is not intended by the author. For example: The growth of young figure skaters is stimulated with the help of demonstration performances. It would be better to say: By participating in demonstration performances, young skaters improve their skills. The sports commentator did not take into account the possible distortion of the meaning of the following phrase: You see Gavrilov on the screen in a beautiful combination.

The inaccuracy of word usage is explained by inattention or low speech culture of the author. But sometimes they deliberately do not want to use this or that word in order to veil the negative meaning of the statement. They say he fantasizes instead of lying, he accepted gifts instead of taking bribes, etc. Let us recall an episode from the story of A.I. Kuprin "Inquiry":

“Ask him, did he take the tops from Esipaki?

The second lieutenant was again convinced, but of his inexperience and cowardice, because out of some bashful and delicate feeling he could not pronounce the real word he stole.

Words and expressions that soften the rough meaning of speech are called euphemisms (from Gr. ei - good, phemi - I say). The euphemism of speech is often explained by the author's desire to dull the critical sharpness of the statement when describing negative phenomena.

The wrong choice of a word can cause anachronism - a violation of chronological accuracy when using words associated with a particular historical era. For example: In ancient Rome, the plebeians, dissatisfied with the laws, held rallies (the word rally was filled much later, and in England).

Stylistic assessment of dialectisms, jargon

Our speech is subject to various influences, in particular impoverishment, clogging. Various weeds spoil our speech. These can be dialect words, jargon and vulgarisms, unjustified borrowings. All of them require an objective stylistic assessment, both in book texts and in colloquial speech.

The Russian language is rich in folk dialects: a resident of northern places can say a phrase that Voronezh or Orel will not understand. And only Moscow arrogance, which underlies the Russian literary language, will be understandable to all Russian people. One writer, in order to show the originality of local Russian dialects, wrote an “elegy” in the Vyatka dialect, the content of which needs to be “translated” into Russian, because it contained many incomprehensible dialectisms (this is how the words used in local dialects, that is, dialects) are called) .

Slang vocabulary denotes concepts that already have names in the national language. Jargon is a kind of colloquial speech used by a certain circle of native speakers, united by a common interest, occupation, position in society. In modern Russian, youth jargon, or slang, is distinguished (from the English slang - words and expressions used by people of certain professions or age groups). A lot of words and expressions came from slang into colloquial speech: cheat sheet, cram, tail (academic debt), swim (poorly answer the exam), fishing rod (satisfactory grade), etc.

The emergence of many jargon is associated with the desire of young people to express their attitude to the subject, phenomenon more vividly, more emotionally. Hence such evaluative words: awesome, awesome, cool, neigh, go crazy, buzz, fuck, plow, sunbathe, etc. All of them are common only in oral speech and are often absent in dictionaries.

What is the assessment of jargon? Of course, those who studied Russian with L.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, L.N. Tolstoy, will not admire jargon. In addition, jargon is incomprehensible to uninitiated people, and this creates grounds for misunderstandings. However, in the oral speech of young people, jargon is indestructible; they give it liveliness, sometimes ironic coloring. But the scope of their use is narrow: it is oral speech, moreover, stylistically reduced, non-literary.

Stylistic evaluation of borrowed words

You can often hear that foreign words "clog" the Russian language and therefore you need to "fight" with them. Indeed, in colloquial speech, we often use "fashionable" foreign words out of place. The language of advertising is flooded with Americanisms, there are many unjustified borrowings in magazines and newspapers.

The Russian language has always been open to replenishment of vocabulary from foreign sources. Borrowings from ancient languages (Greek, Latin), Turkisms, Gallicisms, words of Dutch, German, English origin, Polonisms, Ukrainianisms and others were mastered by the Russian language in different historical epochs, without damaging its national identity, but only enriching it and expanding its limits. . However, too large an influx of foreign words into our language at certain periods caused alarm among the figures of Russian culture.

In the late 80s - 90s, the influx of foreign words into the Russian language increased especially strongly due to changes in the sphere of political life, economics, culture, and ideology.

We are witnessing an unprecedented expansion of foreign vocabulary in all areas. She took a leading position in the political life of the country, getting used to new concepts: president, parliament, inauguration, speaker, impeachment, electorate, department, municipality, legitimate, consensus, etc.; foreign language terms have become dominant in the most advanced branches of science and technology: computer, display, file, driver, modem, monitoring, player, pager, fax, as well as in financial and commercial activities: auditor, barter, broker, business, dealer, investment, conversion, sponsor, trust, holding, etc. Words invade the cultural sphere: bestsellers, westerns, thrillers, hits, showmen, digests, etc. Everyday speech vividly accepts new realities with their non-Russian names - speaker, twix, hamburger, cheeseburger, sprite, coca, marketing, supermarket, shopping, etc. Even vernacular and jargon replenish their vocabulary with Americanisms, most often distorted, mutilated - gerla, shopnik , face, shoes, bucks, greens, ting (abbreviated teenager). The pursuit of a new, “beautiful”, sonorous, and sometimes incomprehensible name for the uninitiated leads to the fact that the individual peasant wants to be only a farmer, the extortionist bandit is called nothing more than a racketeer (it can be even more sonorous - racketman), and the killer - killer.

Dictionaries of foreign words do not have time to master new borrowings, so a reader who does not speak English often finds himself helpless when he encounters incomprehensible words in newspapers and magazines full of foreign language terms: exclusive (exclusive), press release (special bulletin for media workers issued by government agency), consensus (lat. consent).

Observing all the sad consequences of the "total Americanization" of our language, it is difficult to maintain objectivity in the ongoing controversy about the appropriateness of foreign borrowings in modern Russian. And yet voices are heard in defense of non-Russian words that are fixed in communication.

In recent years, new phenomena have entered our lives, and with them new words. Similar processes of vocabulary enrichment due to borrowings occur in all modern languages. In our time, the flow of new ideas, things, information, technologies requires the rapid naming of objects and phenomena, makes us involve existing foreign names in the language, and not expect the creation of original words on Russian soil. Scientific and technical, military, financial, banking, sports vocabulary around the world is striving for internationalization. The craving for scientific and technological progress, for civilization is reflected in the language. Partly there is an alignment of the dictionary of the Russian language according to the international standard. Time will show how much this will change the face of the Russian language, whether it will enrich it or “spoil it”.

And yet, you should not get carried away with foreign words, because many new borrowings are incomprehensible, so you need to speak more simply, in pure Russian.

Paronyms and accuracy of speech

Paronyms (from the Greek Para - “near”, “past” and onyta - “name”) are words similar in sound, but not the same in meaning. The words that make up the paromia series, as a rule, correlate with each other in a logical and semantic sense, which can cause their shift in speech. The semantic proximity of paronyms arises, as a rule, on the basis of word-formation kinship: these are words of the same root (foreign and alien, noisy, noisy and noisy). However, sometimes there are paronyms that do not have a common meaning (for example, the similarity of the words turkey - Indian woman was used by the children's writer V. Dragunsky to create a comic effect: the girl Alenka, having smeared her face, as the Indians do, announces that she is a turkey).

A striking feature of paronyms (as opposed to synonyms) is that they are not interchangeable. If synonyms can replace each other in the text (there was a cry - a cry was heard; a moral person is a virtuous person), then paronyms, as a rule, do not have this property (for example, you cannot say a military ID instead of a military ID). Differences in the meanings of paronyms are usually so important that replacing one word with another without violating the meaning is impossible.

However, sometimes paronyms in certain meanings and combinations can act as synonyms. For example, one can say both distant and distant lands, and a grassy and grassy field.

As a rule, paronyms included in a pair are combined with a different set of words, and this must be taken into account when using them. If it is difficult to choose the correct form of a paronym or a word with which a paronym can be combined, it is necessary to refer to the dictionaries of Russian paronyms or explanatory dictionaries.

It is the differences in compatibility that make it possible to distinguish between paronymic words. For example, the paronyms guaranteed and guaranteed are combined with a different set of nouns. Guarantee can be: capital, credit, securities, documentation, passport, letter, obligation, contract, repair. In combination with the word guaranteed, you can use the words: advance, income, earnings, loan, salary, salary, production, circulation, return, work, rest, harvest. Differences in compatibility are associated with differences in meanings: warranty - relating to a guarantee, serving as a guarantee; guaranteed - conditioned, supported by law, and also secured.

Let's also compare the paronyms demonstrative (performed for the purpose of demonstration) and demonstrative (intended for demonstration, display), which in speech can be combined with different words. The word demonstrative has three meanings, and demonstrative only one.

From the dictionaries of paronyms, you can find out that the adjective demonstrative is combined with: nouns denoting actions, manifestations of a person’s attitude towards someone, something (act, care, attention, respect, character); nouns related to the "military" vocabulary (attack, fire); nouns lecture, method, etc.

The adjective demonstrative is combined with a limited range of nouns, mainly denoting a training room for lectures, classes, demonstrations of something. (lecture, audience, class, hall). Therefore, one cannot say, for example: “In classes with children, we use blocks, posters, bright diagrams and other demonstrative material.” The material can only be demonstrative, but if someone, leaving, slams the door loudly, such behavior can be demonstrative.

As a rule, the dictionary entry of the dictionary of paronyms gives comprehensive information about the meanings of paronyms and the words with which they are combined: the dictionary warns the reader against possible errors and inaccuracies. The task of paronym dictionaries is to find out the compatibility features of cognate words based on a comparison of their semantics.

For the convenience of reviewing the material, three groups of paronyms can be conditionally distinguished. 1. Coincident or close in meaning. 2. Coinciding in some values. 3. Significantly different in meaning. Let's take a look at these groups.

Single-root paronyms are mostly close in meaning, but differ in subtle semantic nuances. For example, the paronyms pay and pay have a similar meaning.

When comparing the values, it is easy to make sure that they coincide in many respects (the highlighted part is the common one). However, the paronyms pay and pay go together with different elephants. For example, you can pay (what) travel, sledge), bill, but pay (what) dues, debt. The verb to shake is combined with nouns and the instrumental case (to pay with money, currency), which are not combined with the verb to pay. You can pay for something (for travel, for shopping!, But you can’t say, for example: pay for travel. In this case, you need to use the form pay for travel, since the verb pay cannot be combined with nouns with the preposition for. The ability of paronyms to combine with different elephants and shapes layers presents a major difficulty in their use.

Paronyms can be combined with the same forms of words, but differ in subtle semantic shades. For example, paronyms simplify - simplify have the general meaning of "make simpler", but the second word is characterized by an additional connotation of "simpler than it should be." For example: simplify your sing style and simplify your speech. The semantic shades of paronyms are usually so important that it is impossible to replace one word with another without violating the meaning.

PARONOMASIA

The phenomenon of paronomasia (from gr. para - near, onomazo - I call) consists in the sound similarity of words that have different morphological roots (cf .: couples - sleds, pilot - boatswain, clarinet - cornet, injection - infection). As with paronymy, lexical pairs in paronomasia belong to the same part of speech, perform similar syntactic functions in a sentence. Such words may have the same prefixes, suffixes, endings, but their roots are always different. Apart from an accidental phonetic similarity, the words in such lexical pairs have nothing in common; their subject-semantic reference is completely different.

Paronomasia, unlike paronymy, is not a natural and regular phenomenon. And although there are many phonetically similar layers in the language, comparing them as lexical pairs is the result of individual perception: one will see paronomasia in chara circulation - type, another - in circulation - mirage, the third - in circulation - turn. However, paronymy and paronomasia are close in terms of the use of similar-sounding words in speech.

Accuracy of inflection and shaping

The accuracy and clarity of speech sometimes requires us to be precise in the use of gender forms, case of nouns. Try to guess who - a man or a woman - says about himself: "I am an orphan, an unfortunate orphan!" Everyone will think: of course, a woman! Indeed, for modern speech, it has become the norm to agree in meaning with nouns of a common gender (they are equally applicable to men and women - a slob, a sweet tooth, a coquette, a clever one). But the writers of the past can find a different agreement: Come, dear grandfather, have pity on me, an unfortunate orphan company (Ch., "Vanka"),

Now we say: He has a terrible sweet tooth; This boy is such a slob...

However, there are cases when the incorrect use of forms of adjectives that agree with nouns of the general gender introduces ambiguity. For example: He stood amazed, but soon felt compassion for the little one lying in front of him. But the girl took the child in her arms and, calling the boy pretty, took it away. Are you talking about a boy or a girl?

Case endings can clarify the meaning of some nouns. Teak, in the form of the nominative plural of bread means cereals on the vine, and breads are products baked from flour. Therefore, it is impossible to call the following phrase true: The hostess took out bread from the oven. The endings in such nouns should not be confused: furs (blacksmith's) - furs (dressed skins); images (literary and artistic) - images (icons); orders (knightly and monastic societies) - orders (insignia); belts (geographical) - belts (pieces of clothing); passes (oversights - passes (documents); sables (animals) - sables (furs); brakes (obstacles) - brakes (devices); flowers (plants) - colors (coloring); junkers (until 1945 in Germany they called large landowners) - cadets (cadets in military schools of tsarist Russia).

We should not forget about the semantic differences of some grammatical forms of adjectives.

Often the full form of adjectives indicates a permanent feature of the subject, and the short form indicates a temporary one. Wed: he is sick - he is sick, she is so kind - please, his movements are calm - his face is calm.

In other cases, the full form of adjectives denotes an absolute attribute that is not associated with a specific situation, and a short relative attribute in relation to a specific situation: the ceiling is low (a sign in general) - the ceiling is low (for high furniture). Wed also: shoes are small, boots are large, passage is narrow.

Particular precision must be observed when using pronouns. Their ability to replace the previous ones cannot cause ambiguity in the statement. For example, how to understand the phrase about love for animals? - Sasha knew that if, after three days of keeping the dogs in a special place, the owners did not come for them, they would be destroyed (owners or dogs?). Such use of pronouns often generates ambiguity and inappropriate comedy: Educators are worried about a teenager's free time and how to kill him ...

When using a verb, ambiguity may arise due to the possibility of a double interpretation of forms in -sya, for example; Children who get lost on the streets gather here (they gather themselves or are they collected?). Failure to distinguish between subject-object relations in such cases can create an inappropriate comical statement: Chicks are fed on insects; A dog is harnessed to the sleigh to help the hunter.

Clarity of syntactic constructions

The accuracy and clarity of speech are due to the correctness of grammatical constructions, the construction of phrases and sentences.

The ability to combine words into phrases in different ways gives rise to ambiguity: The teacher had to explain a lot (did the teacher explain or did someone explain to him?).

The reason for the ambiguity of the statement may be the wrong word order in the sentence: 1. Spacious balconies are framed by reinforced glass screens. 2. Seven operating platforms serve several hundred people. In such sentences, the subject does not differ in form from the direct object, and therefore it is not clear what (or who) is the subject of the action. An example of such confusion is the Sun covering a cloud.

Of course, such sentences can be corrected if they are used in written speech; it is enough to change the word order: 1. Armored glass screens frame spacious loggias. 2. Several hundred people serve seven operating platforms. And, of course: The cloud covered the sun. But if you hear a phrase with the wrong word order, then you may misinterpret it. This is what L.P.'s joke is based on. Chekhov: "I wish you to avoid all sorts of troubles, sorrows and misfortunes."

Semantic ambiguity sometimes arises in combinations such as a letter to the mother (written by her or addressed to her), criticism of Belinsky, portraits of Repin, etc.

Ambiguity can also arise in complex sentences with subordinate attributive clauses such as: The illustrations for the stories that were sent to the competition were masterfully executed (were illustrations or stories sent to the competition?). In these cases, it is recommended to replace subordinate clauses with participial phrases: Illustrations sent to the stories. Or: Illustrations for submitted stories.

Conclusion

Language is an integral part of our life, every day people communicate with each other, learning the world in communication. Therefore, knowledge of one's language, its literary norm is necessary now - in the conditions of changing norms, the introduction of new words and expressions. Only by studying the style and culture of speech can we preserve the Russian language as it is at the moment and embellish it. Only understanding by others of your speech will allow you to take a high position in society. The quality and beauty of speech make it clear the level of human development.

Literature:

Vvedensky L.A., Pavlova L.G., Kashaeva E.Yu., "Russian language and culture of speech" - textbook, "Phoenix", Rostov-on-Don, 2001
Golub I.B., “The style of the Russian language”, “Iris-press”, Moscow, 1997
Golub I.B., "Russian language and culture of speech" - textbook, "Logos", Moscow, 2003
Dunev A.I., Dymarsky M.Ya., Kozhevnikov A.Yu. "Russian language and culture of speech", "Higher School", Moscow, 2002
Maksimov V.I. ,Kazarinov N.V., Barabanova N.R., "Russian language and culture of speech"-textbook, "Gardariki", Moscow, 2002
Reformatsky A.A., "Introduction to Linguistics", "Aspect Press", Moscow, 2000
Rozental D.E., "Practical statistics of the Russian language", "Publishing house AST-LTD", Tula, 1998

Communicative competence- this is the ability of a person to organize his speech activity by language means and methods corresponding to the situation of communication.

Purpose of this course- increasing the level of speech culture, the formation of communicative competence.

Course objectives:

acquaintance with the basic concepts of the discipline (literary language, norm, style, culture of speech, functional style, business communication, etc.);

the formation of general ideas about the system of norms of the Russian literary language;

familiarization with the rules of communication in various situations of communication, the rules for drawing up basic business documents (applications);

to study general ideas about the rules of communicative-logical construction of speech, the basic laws of logic, strategies for conducting a dispute and the peculiarities of conducting business communication;

to form the need for a careful attitude to the native language, its wealth, the ability to use the means of linguistic and speech expressiveness;

Two types of cultural speech: correct and exemplary

correct- this is a speech that meets all the norms, rules of the language. Namely, the norms: pronunciation, vocabulary, phraseology, morphology, syntax, spelling and punctuation.

Exemplary is a speech that, in addition, complies with the norms (rules, requirements, principles, recommendations) of style, the requirements of relevance, accessibility, richness, imagery and originality.

The concept of speech culture

A culture of speech- the most important component of the general culture, i.e. all the achievements of human society in industrial, social and spiritual activities. The culture of speech is a prerequisite for the successful activity of any person. The culture of speech is the ability to correctly, accurately and vividly express one's thoughts and feelings.

The concept of "culture of speech" is closely connected with the concept of "literary language": one concept implies another. The culture of speech arises along with the formation and development of the literary language.

One of the main tasks of the culture of speech is the preservation and improvement of the literary language, which has the following features:

written fixation of oral speech (the presence of writing affects the nature of the literary language, enriching its expressive means and expanding the scope of application);

normalization

branched functional-stylistic system;

dialectical unity of book and colloquial speech;

close connection with the language of fiction.

Three components of speech culture: normative, communicative, ethical

The culture of speech includes three components: normative, communicative and ethical.

The most important of them is normative component. Norm¾ is a set of the most stable, traditional implementations of the language system, selected and fixed in the process of communication. The norm exists at all language levels (sound, word-formation, lexical, grammatical, syntactic). A literary language cannot exist and successfully perform a communicative function without the obligatory norms (the absence of linguistic norms would lead to misunderstanding in the communication process).

An ideal language norm could be considered such a norm that meets at least two requirements: 1) does not change over several centuries; 2) exists in the speech of absolutely all native speakers (without exceptions for social, professional groups, as well as for population groups identified according to the territorial principle). However, the norm with the named parameters is "hard to achieve" or "completely unattainable".

Language norms are a historical phenomenon. The change in literary norms is due to the constant development of the language. What was the norm in the last century, and even 15-20 years ago, today may become a deviation from it. For example, the word bankrupt was borrowed in the 18th century. from the Dutch language and originally in Russian it sounded like bankrut. Its derivatives had a similar pronunciation: bankrupt, bankrupt, go bankrupt. In the time of Pushkin, a pronunciation variant appears with "o" along with "y". You could say bankrupt and bankrupt. By the end of the XIX century. finally defeated bankrupt, bankruptcy, bankrupt, go bankrupt. It has become the norm.

The accents are also changing. Thus, at the end of the 1990s, both variants of pronunciation were acceptable: thinking and thinking. In the modern dictionary (2005), only one form is given - thinking.

The historical change in the norms of the literary language is a natural, objective phenomenon. It does not depend on the will and desire of individual native speakers. The development of society, the change in the social way of life, the emergence of new traditions, the improvement of relationships between people, the functioning of literature and art lead to the constant renewal of the literary language and its norms.

There is a professional use of any language means: in the speech of many specialists, including people with a high general linguistic culture, forms that are different from the generally accepted ones are common - a compass (for sailors), syringes ´ (for doctors), the price is negotiable (for economists), comb the fund - neatly arrange books in the library (for librarians), computers (for computer scientists) and many others.

There is a territorial (dialect) word usage. In everyday colloquial speech of native speakers of the Russian language living in different territories, local words and forms of dialectal origin are often used, for example * drink tea (drink tea), * byvAT (sometimes), * kartovina (potato) in the speech of the inhabitants of the Russian North. Dialecticisms can be inherent in residents not only of villages, but also of central cities. So, it was found that, along with the generally accepted name of rectangular bread loaf, residents of Moscow and St. Petersburg actively use the word brick (this is already a local dialect), and in the speech of Perm and Chelyabinsk residents, all forms of bread, including rectangular, are referred to as the word bun (from the point of view of the norm, this word refers only to a special type of round white bread).

So, both professional and territorial vocabulary exist today in the speech of native speakers of the Russian language. They reflect deviations from the norm that really exist in the language, convincingly proving that the norm is not an ideal or a dogma. Norms are mobile, they change depending on the goals and conditions of communication.

The culture of speech implies, in addition to observing language norms, the choice and use of language means in accordance with communicative tasks. (For each goal - its own means!) In accordance with the requirements of the communicative aspect of the culture of speech, native speakers must master its functional styles, as well as focus on communication conditions that significantly affect how we speak (or write) at the moment. So, for example, if the goal is to create a scientific text (article, term paper or thesis), this determines the choice of a scientific functional style that meets the requirements of conceptual accuracy, consistency, etc. If the goal is to write a business letter, the only right choice in this case will be officially - business style. The mixing of functional styles, the substitution of one for another (even if other norms of speech are observed) is evidence of the low culture of the speaker/writer.

The communicative component of the culture of speech also implies accuracy, intelligibility and purity of speech. So, excessive, inappropriate use of borrowed words in oral speech makes communication difficult, and jargon and swear words violate the purity of speech. The communicative component of the culture of speech bears the main burden in the most effective achievement of the goals of communication.

The communicative component of the culture of speech includes three main components: 1) defining the purpose of communication; 2) determination of the pragmatic conditions of the communicative act; 3) dictated by the purpose and pragmatics, the basis for the choice and organization of language means that form the corresponding texts in their written or oral implementation.

The system of communicative goals seems to be the following. There are propositional and modal goals. Propositional goals determine the actual content of the text, modal goals are a communicative setting of the text such as: information, persuasion, motivation, etc. The opposition of propositional and modal meanings, which goes back to the concept of S. Bally, was developed in relation to the meaning of the sentence-statement.

Among the most important pragmatic characteristics of the communicative component of the culture of speech, if we try to generalize the experience of research in this area, we should include: 1) correspondence between the goal of communication of the addresser and the expectations from the communication of the addressee; 2) an accurate understanding of the speech characteristics of the addresser and addressee in this situation; 3) taking into account private pragmatic characteristics of the addresser and addressee.

The ethical component of the culture of speech prescribes the knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in a particular situation. Ethical norms of communication are understood as speech etiquette (speech formulas of greeting, request, farewell, gratitude, congratulations, etc.; appeal to "you" or "you"; choice of full or abbreviated name, form of address, etc.).

Every society has its own ethical standards of behavior. Ethics of communication, or speech etiquette, requires compliance with certain rules of linguistic behavior in certain situations. The ethical component manifests itself mainly in speech acts - purposeful language actions: the expression of a request, a question, gratitude, greetings, congratulations, etc.

A special area of communication ethics is explicit and unconditional prohibitions on the use of certain language means, for example, in any situation, foul language is strictly prohibited. Some intonational language means may also be prohibited - for example, speaking in "raised tones".

Thus, the ethical aspect of the culture of speech implies the necessary level of ethics of communication in different social and age groups of native speakers of the literary language, as well as between these groups.

Ensuring the maximum effectiveness of communication is associated with all three components (normative, communicative, ethical) of speech culture. The Russian literary language of our days, expressing the modern aesthetic-artistic, scientific, social, spiritual life of the people, serves the self-expression of the individual, the development of all forms of verbal art, creative thought, the moral revival and improvement of all aspects of society at a new stage of its development.

5. Modern speech situation: main characteristics and trends.

The modern speech situation is characterized by the involvement of broad sections of the population in public speech, the diversity of its types (political, military, diplomatic, academic, church, business) and genres (lecture, report, sermon, speech at a rally, in public discussion, etc.)

A feature of modern public speech communication is its dialogization: various forms of dialogue (argument, discussion, polemics, television debates, interviews), often mediated by the media, come to the fore. The dialogue of the TV presenter and his guest in the studio, as a rule, implies the presence of another, third participant - the audience of viewers, which can be expressed in the well-known formula: "Thank you to everyone who was with us today." Sometimes political opponents, arguing with each other in the media, argue primarily for the audience, winning over potential voters.

Dialogization of communication is also manifested in the monologue form of speech. In order to be effective, a monologue (a lecture, a report, a speech at a rally, a teacher’s word in a lesson, etc.) must include means of dialogization: appeals, questions or question-answer moves, particles, introductory words and expressions that allow you to establish contact with the audience, arouse and maintain its attention and interest in speech.

The state of the Russian language of our time is determined by a number of factors.

2. In the media, censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened.

4. The sphere of spontaneous communication is expanding, not only personal, but also oral public. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say.

7. The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past (the so-called Newspeak) is growing sharply.

8. There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of appeals to strangers.

Modern trends in colloquial speech

The mechanisms of interaction between the literary language and non-literary spheres of speech cannot be considered fully understood. Of considerable interest in this regard is the picture of the assimilation by colloquial speech and literary vernacular of elements coming from various social dialects, professional vernacular, jargonized vocabulary, youth slang, etc.

Non-literary vocabulary is divided into: 1) Professionalisms 2) Vulgarisms 3) Jargonisms 4) Slang. This part of the vocabulary is distinguished by its colloquial and informal character.

Professionalisms are words used by small groups of people united by a certain profession.

Vulgarisms are rude words not usually used by educated people in society, a special lexicon used by people of lower social status: prisoners, drug dealers, homeless people, etc.

Jargons are words used by certain social or common interest groups that carry a secret meaning that is incomprehensible to everyone.

Slang is words that are often seen as breaking the rules of the standard language. These are very expressive, ironic words that serve to designate objects that are spoken about in everyday life.

Jargon" - from fr. "jargon" is the speech of a relatively open social or professional group, which differs from the common language in a special composition of words and expressions. This is a conditional language, understandable only in a certain environment, it has a lot of artificial, sometimes conditional words and expressions.

Approved by the Educational and Methodological Association

Universities of Russia by directions

teacher education,

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation

As a textbook for students

Institutions of higher education

Moscow "High School" 2002

BBK 81.2 Rus-5ya73

Textbook authors: cand. philol. Sciences A. I. Dunev(VI.8, VII.1), Dr. Philol. Sciences M.Ya. Dymarsky(VI.9), cand. philol. Sciences A.Yu. Kozhevnikov(III.8,1V.4, VI.5, VI.6), cand. philol. Sciences N. V. Kozlovskaya(III.1, III.2, III.4, III.5), cand. philol. Sciences I. N. Levina(IX, IX. 1, X), Dr. Philol. Sciences I. A. Martyanova(XI), cand. philol. Sciences E.V. Sergeeva(V, VIII), Dr. Philol. Sciences K.P. Sidorenko(III.6, III.7) , cand. philol. Sciences HER. Silantiev(IV, VI.3, VI.7 Candidate of Sciences in Philology M. B. Khrymova(VI. 1, VI.2), Dr. Philol. Sciences VD. Chernyak (general edition of the textbook, I, II, III.1, III.3), Dr. of Philology. Sciences N. L. Shubin(VII.2)

R 88 Russian language and culture of speech: Proc. for universities /A. I. Dunev, M.Ya. Dymarsky, A.Yu. Kozhevnikov and others; Ed. V.D. Chernyak.

- M .: Higher. school; S.-Pb.: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University im. A.I. Herzen, 2002.

ISBN 5-06-004205-7 (High School)

ISBN 5-8064-0483-8 (Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen)

The textbook is built in accordance with the new functional orientations of the discipline "Russian Language and Culture of Speech" and aims not only to develop students' speech competence, but also to expand their understanding of the Russian language, the modern speech situation, and the speech portrait of our contemporary. The book contains theoretical material and a large number of practical tasks for classroom and independent work of students. The authors consider aspects of the existence of the Russian word that are relevant for speech behavior, the norms of Russian speech, the stylistic aspects of speech culture, and the basics of speech communication.

The textbook is intended for students of higher educational institutions in the discipline "Russian language and culture of speech". The book can be useful to anyone who is interested in the current state of the Russian language and wants to actively improve the quality of their speech.

BBK 81.2 Rus-5ya73

ISBN 5-8064-0483-8

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of the new discipline "Russian Language and Speech Culture" into the educational standards of higher educational institutions is a significant and natural fact. A society in which freedom of speech has become recognized as one of the highest values has come to understand that the knowledge of the native language, the ability to communicate, conduct a harmonious dialogue and achieve success in the communication process are important components of professional skills in various fields of activity. In whatever field a specialist with a higher education works, he must be an intelligent person, freely navigating in a rapidly changing information space. The culture of speech is not only an indispensable component of well-trained business people, but also an indicator of the culture of thinking, as well as the general culture. The well-known linguist T. G. Vinokur very accurately defined speech behavior as "a visiting card of a person in society."

For a long time, the culture of speech was considered only in the aspect of mastering the norms of the Russian literary language. Many manuals on the culture of speech are built in these orientations. On the other hand, the revival of interest in rhetoric and the inclusion of this discipline in university programs contributed to a shift in emphasis towards the study of speech genres and speech behavior.

The characteristic of the culture of speech, given in the collective monograph "Culture of speech and the effectiveness of communication" (M., 1996), reflects the multidimensional nature of this concept and defines guidelines for the content of the academic discipline: "Culture of speech is such a set and such an organization of language tools that in a certain situation of communication, while observing modern language norms and ethics of communication, make it possible to ensure the greatest effect in achieving the set communicative tasks.

The university course "Russian Language and Culture of Speech" is unique: it is studied by students of different levels of general cultural and language training, who receive education in various specialties. The textbook is built taking into account the various requests of potential recipients.

The authors of the textbook proceed from the principle of variability in the content of the course. It is fundamentally important that in all sections of the textbook materials are presented that allow building work both with students of a high level of language and speech competence, and with those who have difficulty either in following the norms of oral and written speech, or in effective communication in various fields. The textbook should help to implement this principle and contribute to:

- a qualitative increase in the level of speech culture;

The formation of communicative competence, which means the ability of a person to organize his speech activity by language means and methods that are adequate to situations of communication;

Expansion of the cultural level, enrichment of ideas about the language as the most important component of the spiritual wealth of the people;

The formation of skills to evaluate speech behavior and speech works in various areas of communication.

The content of the textbook ensures the performance of its various functions: informing, teaching, developing, reference. Each section of the textbook contains informative and educational parts, assignments and literature for discussion in the audience (mainly publications of the popular science magazine "Russian speech", in an accessible form covering the most relevant phenomena of the Russian language and Russian speech). At the end of the textbook is a list of recommended literature that will help deepen and expand knowledge on the topics studied. Much attention is paid to the formation of the need and skills to use dictionaries. Dictionaries recommended for active use should certainly accompany the work with the textbook.

A distinctive feature of the textbook is its appeal to the modern language situation, to the language of today with all its advantages and disadvantages.

The compilers of the textbook will consider their task completed if the students studying it begin to pay great attention to the purity and correctness of their speech, enjoy the language game, and be able to feel like a creative language person, for whom their native language is also a reliable tool in various fields. activities, and a faithful assistant, and a good friend.

I. MODERN SPEECH SITUATION

Language is a powerful means of regulating people's activities in various fields, so the study of the speech behavior of a modern person, understanding how a person owns the richness of the language, how effectively he uses it, is a very important and urgent task. The poet Lev Oshanin in a lyrical miniature conveyed those emotional sensations that arise during speech "failures" (one of the most typical speech errors is played up in the poem):

I dialed the number

But so deep

Unusual, personal

It seemed

All my life I've dreamed of this.

It's quiet, but it's about to sound

Just touch...

And suddenly I hear:

"Where are you calling!?"

And immediately, as if hail through the window,

It's like I was robbed in a movie.

- Oh, girl, I'm sorry -

Don't call, call! -

And she answered: "Does it matter."

She does not care. Gone. Broke off.

Every educated person must learn to evaluate speech behavior - his own and those of his interlocutors, to correlate his speech actions with a specific communication situation.

In the in-depth study “The Russian Language of the End of the 20th Century (1985–1995)”, an attempt was made to highlight the most significant features of the Russian language of the end of the century. It notes:

“The events of the second half of the 80s - early 90s are similar to the revolution in their impact on society and language. The state of the Russian language of our time is determined by a number of factors.

2. In the media, censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened.

3. Increasing personal start in speech. Faceless and unaddressed speech is replaced by personal speech, it acquires a specific addressee. Increasing bioavailability communication, both oral and written.

4. Expanding scope spontaneous communication not only personal, but also oral public. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say.

7. The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past (the so-called Newspeak).

8. There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of appeals to strangers.

An accurate description of the current state of the Russian language from the standpoint of a lexicographer (compiler of dictionaries), for whom it is always fundamentally important to separate the singular and random from the regular and promising for the language, is given by G. N. Sklyarevskaya: “We have a unique opportunity to observe and study the language at the time of its rapid and, as it seems, catastrophic changes: all natural processes in it are accelerated and mismatched, hidden mechanisms are revealed, the action of language models is exposed, in the mass consciousness, the observed language processes and facts are assessed as destructive and disastrous for the language. Such dynamics and such tension of all linguistic processes give the impression of linguistic chaos, although in reality they provide precious and rare material for linguistic discoveries. (Sklyarevskaya G.N. Russian language of the late XX century: version of the lexicographic description // Dictionary. Grammar. Text. M., 1996).

Mass media have a special influence on the state of speech culture. Each person daily experiences the powerful impact of television speech, speech that sounds on the radio or presented on the pages of newspapers and magazines. The quality of this speech evokes an immediate emotional response. It is newspapers and magazines, radio and television for many native speakers that serve as the main source of ideas about the language norm, they form the language taste; many diseases of the language are rightly associated with the mass media.

Linguistic emancipation, at times turning into unbridledness, replication of linguistic errors that do not meet with a proper rebuff, dull the sense of linguistic responsibility. Sloppy speech, adherence to cliches, the desire to cover up the banality of thought with “prestigious” words and phrases are found in numerous statements that sound on radio waves and from TV screens. Many broadcasts, primarily addressed to young people, undermine the notion of what is acceptable and unacceptable in public speech.

The modern periodical press is replete with unmotivated borrowings, ineptly formed occasional words (single author's neoplasms), jargon. The removal of ideological prohibitions, the desire to update the lexical and stylistic resources of journalism determine the high degree of looseness of the mass media. “The constant presence of jargon in written texts leads to their “freezing”, as if stabilizing them, literaryizing and, of course, reducing their jargon” (Kostomarov V. G. Language taste of the era. M, 1994).

Twenty years ago, D.S. Likhachev first used the concept, which was quite new at that time ecology in an unusual context - "ecology of culture", "moral ecology". He wrote: “... Ecology cannot be limited only to the tasks of preserving the natural biological environment. No less important for a person's life is the environment created by the culture of his ancestors and himself. The preservation of the cultural environment is a task no less important than the preservation of the natural environment.” In recent years, the question of the ecology of language, directly related to the consciousness of a person, with the defining properties of his personality, has been increasingly raised; the ecology of language is an integral part of the ecology of culture.

"Pollution of the language environment", which occurs with the active participation of the media, cannot but have a detrimental effect on the speech culture of a native speaker. Here it is appropriate to recall the words of S. M. Volkonsky, who wrote back in the 20s of the XX century: “The feeling of language (if I may say so, the feeling of the purity of the language) is a very subtle feeling, it is difficult to develop and very easy to lose. The slightest shift in the direction of slovenliness and irregularity is enough for this slovenliness to become a habit, and, as a bad habit, as such it will flourish. After all, it is in the nature of things that good habits require practice, while bad habits develop themselves. (Volkonsky S. M. O Russian language // Russian speech. 1992. No. 2).

Today, the ability to conduct a dialogue is becoming one of the most important characteristics of a person as a social phenomenon. A significant increase in the role of oral speech in the structure of communication, the expansion of its functions have significantly changed the idea of the reference qualities of a speaker. Oral (meaning freer) verbal communication determines many qualities of speech that are found at different levels.

The well-known linguist academician Yu. D. Apresyan writes that the level of speech culture of a society (and, consequently, the state of the language) is determined by the relative weight of different types of language proficiency:

1. High art of the word, presented in first-class literature. This level of language proficiency can be seen as an aesthetic ideal.

2. Good artisanal (i.e. professional) language skills, represented by good journalism and good translations.

3. Intelligent command of the language, which is dominated by a healthy conservative beginning.

4. Semi-educated command of the language, "combined with poor command of thought and logic."

5. Urban vernacular, youth jargon (Apresyan Yu. D. On the state of the Russian language // Russian speech. 1992. No. 2).

The author emphasizes that it is the fourth type, which embodies the “speech inferiority” complex of a native speaker, his attempts to imitate cultural speech, attachment to ideological clichés, that is fraught with a destructive beginning.

The speech portrait of a linguistic personality is largely determined by the richness of its lexicon. It is this that ensures the freedom and efficiency of speech behavior, the ability to fully perceive and process information received in verbal form. The speech situation at the turn of the century is characterized, on the one hand, by the active enrichment of the dictionary (a stream of borrowings, adaptation of terminological vocabulary by ordinary consciousness, the promotion of jargon units into the literary language), and on the other hand, the impoverishment of certain fragments of the dictionary, largely due to a change in the circle of reading, deverbalization of culture. .

Understanding the language environment is naturally associated with the place that a book and, more broadly, a written text occupies in modern society. The range of texts read and studied has a great influence on the formation of personality. In the process of reading, we do not just perceive texts. Their fragments are appropriated by a person, the processed words and phrases form a lexicon. The quantity and quality of the texts read are directly reflected in those speech works that a native speaker creates in various areas of communication.

Philosophers and psychologists today speak with great concern about the expansion of screen culture, which is replacing the culture of reading. As you know, a reading person thinks differently, has a large vocabulary, but the features of a linguistic personality are determined not only by the quantity, but also by the quality of what is read; the properties of the created speech works depend on the properties of regularly processed texts, they are the result of their processing. The outstanding literary critic and philosopher M. M. Bakhtin wrote that "the individual speech experience of every person is formed and developed in continuous and constant interaction with other people's individual statements."

The questionnaire, which was answered by tenth graders from three Moscow schools, testifies to a sad fact: dozens of names that create a multidimensional field of culture mean nothing to today's schoolchildren, because they are simply not familiar to them. A crack in the mutual understanding of generations is growing. This cannot but affect the ability to communicate, to conduct a constructive dialogue. The common language of culture is created on the basis of those texts that have already formed the linguistic consciousness of generations.

The writer I. Volgin notes with concern: “There is some kind of secret connection between the weakened grammar and our disintegrated life. The confusion in cases and the monstrous confusion of stresses signal a certain inferiority of being. Behind the flaws of syntax, defects of the soul are suddenly revealed.<...>Damage to language is, among other things, damage to life, unable to express itself in clear grammatical forms and therefore always ready to retreat into the zone of the accidental and lawless. Language is the unwritten constitution of the state, non-compliance with the spirit of which leads to the death of any (including spiritual) power ”(Lit. newspaper. 1993. No. 34). According to the author, many native speakers of the Russian language, including “future intellectuals” receiving higher education, have lost their natural sense of shame for gross errors in written texts; in the general "festival of verbal freedom" those who, by the nature of their activity, should defend the ideals of the national verbal culture, also participate.

In different speech spheres, there is a noticeable impoverishment of speech at the lexical level, its truncation - at the level of utterance construction, carelessness - at the phonetic and morphological levels. There is a clear decrease in the overall level of speech culture in the media, in professional and everyday communication. N. G. Komlev writes more categorically about this: “People use a variety of linguistic means in microscopic sizes. The culture of speech impact has fallen to its lowest point. Russian speech catastrophically lags behind the high canons of Russian literature. It is becoming more and more primitive, stylistically helpless and often vulgar” (Lit. newspaper, 1997, October 8).

The intensive growth of borrowings in the last decade largely determines the speech portrait of a young Russian at the end of the 20th century. On the one hand, this is manifested in the natural internationalization of the terminological apparatus of modern science being mastered, in familiarization with modern technologies (the rapid enrichment of that part of the lexicon that is associated with computer technology is especially indicative), on the other hand, in the unjustified Americanization of everyday speech.

Yu. N. Karaulov emphasizes that “the introduction of foreign words comes from the laziness of the mind, the conservatism of the thinking of the speaker and writer, from the unwillingness to “stir up” the resources of the native language and look into its storerooms, and sometimes, however, from the desire for elitism in the text, from the pride of one who knows foreign languages in front of those who do not know them. All these are petty human weaknesses that lend themselves to educational and explanatory influence. (Karaulov Yu. N. On some features of the current state of the Russian language and science about it // Russian Studies Today. 1995. No. 1). These words are quite applicable to the speech behavior of a modern linguistic personality and characterize, first of all, a “semi-educated” type of language proficiency. The socio-psychological factors that explain the widespread use of borrowings include the perception of a foreign word as more prestigious, its connection with an elite culture. The incomprehensibility of a foreign word, the opacity of its internal form often weaken the mechanisms of speech control and lead to communication failures.

So, our contemporary, free and liberated in his speech, should not forget about linguistic responsibility: it is with the help of language that cultural and intellectual wealth is transmitted from generation to generation, it is a good command of the native language that gives the individual the opportunity to fully realize himself in the profession and in creativity; the quality of the language environment testifies to the spiritual health of society.

TASKS

Substantiate and confirm with specific examples the factors identified by linguists that characterize the current state of Russian speech.

Read the reflections on the state of the Russian language of writers - our contemporaries. What characteristics can you agree with, what are you ready to argue with? Give examples from modern media, popular literature, advertisements and other types of text that would support your point of view.

1. An ingenuous news giver, without any irony, reported recently from TV: "During his visit to the Island of Freedom, the Pope declared ..." - meaning a visit to Cuba. From the continuation of the phrase it followed that the pope protested against the infringement on the island of precisely freedoms and rights. It's an oxymoron. But completely involuntary. If you ask the commentator, it turns out that he is not at all mistaken about the freedoms of citizens under the endless dictatorship of Pope Castro, but such a nickname stuck to Cuba in other times and still does not come off despite all the changes in ideological milestones. Habit is straight up bullshit.

Employees of the Russian special services are thoughtlessly called "Chekists". Most of the users of this term do not approve of the Bolshevik terror in the least - they just do not hear the ominous connotation of this word.

The state of nature is now commonly referred to as "ecology". A quite competent TV presenter reports with a sympathetic intonation: “Our report is from a village where the environment is a mortal danger.” In this case, in view of a possible collision with an asteroid, the mortal danger is "astronomy", and for our modern language, the mortal danger undoubtedly lies in "philology". The era of catastrophes affects the representatives of the most meek professions. And then the music critic reported on the radio with her indescribable intelligent intonation: “The Carmen Suite by Bizet-Shchedrin turned out to be at the epicenter of the concert.” And God himself ordered party and state leaders to constantly be in the “epicenter” of events ...

Applicants for elective vacancies have to show voters a little bit of "charisma" - from a simple Russian word ... from the word "face". And it's understandable: they meet you by the face, in Russia they always knew this, and native charismas look rather ludicrous on all screens, thanks to the make-up artists and um ... image makers. And if you hopelessly didn’t come out with charisma, there’s nothing to meddle in the Kalash row. In Okhotny - even more so.

The reality of our time has pretty much shaken the nerves of citizens, and therefore every sensitive person is constantly “in shock”. There was even, if I may say so, a positive shock, for example: "After the victory of their national team, the fans are in shock." Clearly from joy.

"Genocide" positively does not threaten us, but even the most moderate troubles are easily erected into "genocide". Impressive Russian patriotic leaders called "genocide" the difficulties experienced in Latvia by the "non-citizens" there. Difficulties, of course, are observed, but still one should not equate denials of citizenship with massacres. The memory of the victims of Stalin's or Hitler's genocide is offended, of course, by such a devaluation of fascist crimes, but perhaps this is also included in the calculation ....

The fashion for words is much more sticky than for dresses, because changing the wardrobe will be expensive, and fashionable words are acquired for nothing. Today the word "elite" in the sense in which it is used in English is fashionable. And now they count politicians and businessmen in the "elite", that is, people who are rich and successful in their careers; political scientists importantly talk about the relationship of "local elites", which include frankly dark personalities. But in Russia, the elite has always been called the bearers of the highest culture and spirituality - just in contrast to ministers and millionaires. The loss of this shade, the transformation into an elite of vulgar upstarts means a disregard for spiritual values, even if the zealous repeaters of the current word do not think of anything like that.

In the same way, the word "problem" acquired an English content. In Russian, it invariably meant a deep question of universal or national significance: “the problem of searching for extraterrestrial civilizations” excited the imagination for centuries, “problems of agriculture” remained chronically insoluble, as well as “problems of youth”. Now English tracing papers do not leave the language: “what is the problem?”, “no problem”, “this is your problem”, “I have problems with the refrigerator” ...

The expression - figuratively, of course - "public flogging" has become very common. Either, according to a political observer, the president is going to give the government a "public flogging", then the Duma, and the minister himself, sometimes do not mind declaring in the first person: "I was flogged" ... (M. Eccentrics. Style of these days // Lit. newspaper. 1998. July 15).

2. Pushkin is hard to read by the new generation - it is almost not their language. But just a decade ago, the language of Belkin's Tales and The Captain's Daughter was the "norm of life." There has been a huge infusion of Americanisms and technicalisms into our speech. Our television spoke with an American accent. But the point is not in specific words, but in style - this is now a very recognizable style of sketches, chopped business speech that sounds interlinear from English.

Another huge poisonous infusion is camp jargon. Over the past fifty years of our history, millions and millions of people have passed through the camp system, every second of our citizens has come into contact with this prison-camp system in one way or another. Camp jargon has already become the basis of modern vernacular, it has penetrated into literature and even more into culture.

Blat speech, coupled with Americanisms - this is the new business Russian language, in which we do not read, but live and work day by day, is a prototype of social thinking. Language is an ideal tool for controlling the consciousness not of an individual, but of the whole society. The criminal world is really trying to control our consciousness, society, and the most vital interest of this world is the destruction of the cultural layer, because only an uncultured people can be controlled by all these thieves in law, authorities and godfathers. But, having spoken to them with concepts, drunk on this thieves' poison, we will not be “brothers” for them and not even people, but “fraera”, “sixes” (Oleg Pavlov // Twinkle. 1998. No. 7).

3. A special language, as a means of creating a new context, is widely used in various fields of human activity, primarily forming a new ethical environment, freeing from traditional obligations and forcing the development of new ones.<...>

Why do criminals use their own special vocabulary?

For conspiracy? But the "fenya" just does not hide, but betrays the criminal. So, to recognize "their"? It's faster. "Thieves' Fenya" is stable and conservative almost more than the language of politicians.

The word in the national, natural language carries not only worldly, denoting meaning, but also fixes the moral experience of the people.

Killer. Rapist. Robber. Bandit. Scammer.

This is not just a designation of persons and the nature of the activity, but also an assessment and a sentence. That is why in the thieves' dictionary there are a hundred synonyms for the word "murderer". And how many synonyms there are for the words “kill”, “steal”, “deceive”, “thief”, “prostitute”... These synonyms take the criminal fraternity out of the moral context traditional for our people, free from moral assessment.<...>

How amazingly our great writers heard all the shades that reveal the ethical diversity of seemingly similar tautological concepts. To Raskolnikov of a strange appearance and habits, the stranger threw: "The killer." Not a "murderer", but a "murderer". And if the terrible word “murderer” bears on itself, as it were, the uniform of a judicial-protocol, newspaper-reporting guise, then “murderer” is the word “for life”, this is already a stigma, a curse, a sentence of conscience. All the endless, almost brilliant verbosity of Porfiry Petrovich in conversations with Raskolnikov, the incrimination and denunciation of the murderer is not able to outweigh the ethical weight of the sentence - "murderer".

Why are we so persistently asked to call hired killers "killers"? Fashion? Of course, the fashion too, but the fashion for shamelessness, for cynicism, for taming a new morality: "in the whole civilized world they kill." There is no assessment in this foreign word, it is, as it were, on a par with such neutral, non-moral words “dealer”, “color”, this seems to be service terminology: janitor, painter, carpenter

Moving to a new context, to emigration, begins, first of all, with immersion in a new vocabulary, and this is where the “revaluation of values” begins ...

This is very convenient - to put the inhabitants of their country, their city in the position of emigrants, staring at incomprehensible signs, hearing foreign speech, not knowing how to ask what to call. City halls, prefectures, municipalities, killers, dealers, racketeers... This is a dusty bag, which is primarily operated by those who do not want, or maybe are afraid, that its activities be called simply and distinctly in a language that has absorbed experience nation, including the moral (Kuraev M. Journey from Leningrad to St. Petersburg. SPb., 1996. S. 127–132).

4 . Language (as a way of communication) is a living phenomenon. It is constantly changing - well, right before our eyes. The only bad thing is that linguistic innovations at first cut the ear pampered by the literary norm - like a fork on glass!

Literally over the past year, the modest formerly prepositional form “about that” began its victorious march. So, under conditions of pollution, blue-green algae, previously inconspicuous, suddenly begin to multiply in water bodies.

- I do not rule out that prices will rise.

Although it is so convenient not to exclude the possibility that prices will still be kept at an affordable level.

- Intimidation about...

Although before they preferred to intimidate with whom and with what.

- No evidence to support...

- I hid about...

Illiteracy carries some mysterious temptation. Someone was the first to dare to simplify the grammar: well, why, indeed, indulge the intelligibility, even the fastidiousness of Russian verbs: “stated that” is correct, but “proved that” - you see, no. And the people in unison rushed after the brave leader, widening the gap in the wall of rules erected by pedants!

But for some reason, there has never been an epidemic spread of the norm of the Maly Theater. "Cottage cheese" is unable to oust "cottage cheese".

Separately, there is still political illiteracy. A Ukrainian patriot and just a politician, speaking as if in Russian, will never admit that he lives "in Ukraine." No. he resides "in Ukraine". The patriot is offended: “in Russia”, “in Belarus”, even “in Moldova”, although it is very small, and Ukraine is discriminated against through the preposition “on”. And now I am anxiously waiting for this charming subtlety of the language to be erased, confirming that (but not "about") that the language is becoming large-block or something - like modern construction, in which small charming architectural details are unprofitable - cast lattices, stucco molding, skates roofs...

After all, what is typical. When I first heard:

- We will be able to prove to the Russian authorities that ... - I was just thrown up - as if on a language bump.

And after the hundredth repetition in the same way:

- We are indignant that ... - I almost do not resent. I'm getting used to it.

It looks like a new normal is being born.

And maybe it's even good. Because if you wish and have a certain taste, you can arrogantly follow the norm of the old, discarded by the masses - and thereby move away from the surrounding rough life, locking yourself in your own stylistic shell. Much cheaper than an ivory tower (Mikhail Chulaki.“Indignant about what is said” // Lit. newspaper. 1999. No. 11).

5. The Russian language is one of the richest in the world. A misfortune has happened: he becomes impoverished and dead before our eyes (and in our ears). If it is enriched with something alive, then only with well-aimed thieves or semi-thieves words, and besides them - with dry, dead political terms. (The term is a mortified word, devoid of shades, smell, taste, devoid of expressiveness and power, suitable only for Esperanto.) The very foundation collapses: additions die off, for some reason the names of localities and numerals do not decline. Why did they begin to say: “they have five children”, and not “five”? - Why: “I did not have one hundred and twenty-three rubles”, and not “one hundred and twenty-three”? Schoolchildren, teaching literacy, are apparently not taught the names of letters - hence “ne”, “me”, “se”, “sy”, “fe”. (By the way: for the first time I heard these “ne” and “me” from the prison window in 1937. The jailer asks again: “Ne” or “Me”? ..) New accents poured in a shower: “turn on” instead of “turn on”, “take ” instead of “accept”, “deepen” instead of “deepen”, “aggravate” instead of “aggravate”, “begin” instead of “begin”, etc., etc., without end. "Facilitate" instead of "facilitate", "intention" instead of "intention" ... "Dogma" instead of "dogma", "community" instead of "community", "sign" instead of "sign".

There are more than enough foreign words that have flooded into the Russian language. In essence, there is nothing wrong with this. The Russian language has long grown foreign roots next to its roots. This is what Pushkin did. But at the present time it is already a stream, a flood. Among the newly acquired terms, there are those that, of course, meet the requirements of the new social reality: for example, the concept of "sponsor" could not exist under socialism, under Soviet rule, there was no need for it, but now such a concept has arisen, it does not exist in the language - why not to take? - but we do not need many, many foreign words at all. The speaker thinks it is more intelligent to say "exclusive" or "consensus" instead of "exclusive" or "consent". And the intelligentsia, observing this deadly stream, is itself choked with it. (She does not fulfill her cherished duty: to make a selection.) But the trouble is by no means only in foreigners. The trouble is deeper. They jumped from the places of the prefix and rushed at random to innocent nouns and verbs. The prefix “po” triumphs: “wash”, “wash”, “stroke”, “change” (instead of “wash”, “wash”, “ironed”, “exchange”, “exchange”, “replace”, “change ”, “exchange”, “exchange”). Why instead of "I did not consider it possible" they began to say "I did not consider it possible"? Why, instead of sorting out “in this matter,” they began to say “with this matter” ... And declensions, I repeat, declensions! “I live in Odintsovo”, “I live in Kratovo” - why not in Odintsovo, not in Kratovo? "The shelling of Sarajevo continues." Why not Sarajevo? (It’s just a problem with declensions: “arms control” says “arms control”; instead of “drug smuggling” - “drug smuggling” ...).

“God, God, what happened? / Why did everything around / spun, spun / And rushed like a wheel?- Korney Ivanovich asked in a children's fairy tale and on a completely different occasion.

K. Chukovsky did not live up to all this collapse, although he named the name of the main disease of the bureaucratic state: clerk. (From the word "office" by analogy with "diphtheria", "appendicitis", etc.). He laughed sadly at such turns of speech: "we are planning for the summer in the Crimea" instead of "we are going to the Crimea." (“Does every family have its own Gosplan?” he asked). He laughed bitterly when people in his presence flaunted unnecessary foreign words and, using them, thought that they were joining them to education. (What would he say now: “image”, “summit”? After all, we have Russian words for these concepts.) Maria Stepanovna comes to my mind, our dear, glorious worker, an illiterate Russian village woman from under Orel. How beautifully, picturesquely she spoke, told! But now, having once seen pigeons swarming among the flowers, Maria Stepanovna uttered the immortal phrase: “We need them otteda cancel "...

The phrase is very characteristic of modern speech. “Kill out”, “drive out” is too simple, rustic, but if you say “annul” - and you are already educated.

And the words stuck together, and the confusion in the very meaning of the word: “painting” (i.e., wall painting, frescoes) got mixed up with “signature” and “receipt” ... “We need another one of your paintings,” the accountant will tell you in any institution. The meanings of the words “humanitarian” and “humane” are tightly mixed up - and yet they have different meanings. The words "graceful", "grace" used to mean "graceful", "grace", and now they mean "thin", "thin". The word "gain" meant "get well" and now means "put on weight."

And the hairdresser's obsequiousness! "Put your purse on the windowsill." “Can you tell me what time it is?” instead of "Tell me, please, what time is it?". (It seems more polite to them.)

The intelligentsia, I repeat, have lost their immunity. Doesn't select. He is in a hurry to “accept” that swill, which the street, radio, newspaper, TV treat us all day and night. (At the time of glasnost, brilliant and fearless publicists appeared in our country, but I’m not talking about them.) “After the third round voting agreed for an introduction to agreement paragraph on the annulment of this proposal from there "... (Why not "otteda"?) Or: "There were fierce battles on the border during the day, but by evening the situation calmed down." Listen to your speech, broadcasters! How can the situation calm down? Is the situation a machine-gun fire?

I am far from thinking that the drastic changes that take place in the language occur by chance or "by mistake." Well, of course, a lot comes from elementary illiteracy. But in general, this is a complex process, subject to study not by an amateur like me, but by the community of sociologists and linguists. Especially sociologists. (How, for example, in some cases, to coordinate pronouns and verbs with masculine nouns? “My doctor ordered” ... For me it sounds unbearable - like “my rook has arrived.” The word “rook” is masculine - where does “mine” come from? and "arrived"? Well, "my doctor said" - what's better? Isn't it just as unnatural? The only way out is to urgently give the name, patronymic, or at least the surname of the doctor, or, at worst, invent it: "My doctor , Nina Mikhailovna, ordered me "... Here all the words are agreed. I don’t see another way to escape from this hole. To say: "doctor" is for some reason insulting; to say "doctor's wife" will mean "doctor's wife").

But I can lengthen and lengthen the list of my persistent questions ... Why, for example, people who inherited the surname "Ivanov" from their ancestors - suddenly and all at once preferred to call themselves "Ivanovs"? I don’t find anything bad in this, but why is every Ivanov now an Ivanov? Or: why were all translators, leaders, chairmen turned into translators, leaders, chairmen? Why did all female correspondents become correspondents? It's easy to understand: in recent decades, many professions that were previously held only by men have also been mastered by women. There were women engineers, women architects, women economists, women doctors. It was: "translator Vera Zvyagintseva." It became: "translator Vera Zvyagintseva." From this, the translations themselves are no better and no worse, but why?

I'm silent. I will wait until "actress" turns into "actor", "singer" into "singer", and "dancer" into "dancer". I have one question left: are you alive - alive like life? (Chukovsky Lydia. My rook has arrived... // Nevskoe Vremya. 1996. January 10).

Similar information.